User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2015/Mar

Editing for Women's History in March

Hello,

I am very excited to announce this month’s events, focused on Women’s History Month:

• Sunday, March 8: Women in the Arts 2015 Edit-a-thon – 10 AM to 4 PM

  Women in the Arts and ArtAndFeminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free coffee and lunch served!

  More information • RSVP on Meetup

• Wednesday, March 11: March WikiSalon – 7 PM to 9 PM

  An evening gathering with free-flowing conversation and free pizza.

  More information • RSVP on Meetup (or just show up!)

• Friday, March 13: NIH Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon – 9 AM to 4 PM

  In honor of Women’s History Month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is organizing and hosting an edit-a-thon to improve coverage of women in science in Wikipedia. Free coffee and lunch served!

  More information • RSVP on Meetup

• Saturday, March 21: Women in STEM Edit-a-Thon at DCPL – 12 PM

  Celebrate Women's History Month by building, editing, and expanding articles about women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields during DC Public Library's first full-day edit-a-thon.

  More information • RSVP on Meetup

• Friday, March 27: She Blinded Me with Science, Part III – 10 AM to 4 PM

  Smithsonian Institution Archives Groundbreaking Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. Free lunch courtesy of Wikimedia DC!

  More information • RSVP on Meetup

• Saturday, March 28: March Dinner Meetup – 6 PM

  Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!

  More information • RSVP on Meetup

Hope you can make it to an event! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

James Hare

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Coffee

Coffee has email enabled, so you could email him if there are specific revisions he'd like rev-del'd. NE Ent 00:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already dropped him an e-mail, although not on this specific matter. If he indicates anything in a response, I will forward it to you. My sincere hope is that he returns shortly and makes it clear here what he thinks should best be done. John Carter (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably drop him a note too. For what it's worth, I still think the question I posed to Kww should have been asked of Coffee before the talkpage was undeleted. I suppose I won't actually do it, but part of me thinks I should redelete the talkpage now until I hear back from him—partly on the chance there should be revisions-deletions, and partly to see if it would even be possible to turn this weekend's drama-level up from 11 to 12 or 13. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't; it's highly unlikely that was anything other than a lashing out in frustration. I'm pretty sure the drama has peaked based on some heuristics I've developed from reading too many ANI threads. NE Ent 02:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up

I have notified Rationalobserver about the talk on User talk:Anthonyhcole's page, I understand there are wiki politics but discussing a possible sock investigation which is a serious thing without informing the editor involved is just wrong in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Signpost interview

Hi Brad, Just to let you know, we plan to run your interview this week. If you would like to review your comments, you may do so here. We plan to publish in the neighborhood of 5 PM EST, I would imagine. Thanks! Go Phightins! 15:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about hoaxes

If something starts as a hoax, like Jar'edo Wens (or however it is spelt), but then is adopted by popular culture or the mythos of something, what happens? Would the article eventually be restored if it gained enough use and coverage? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly there are historical hoaxes that become encyclopedic in their own right. For examples, see Piltdown Man or Vortigern and Rowena or Cottingley Fairies or Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hopefully no hoax on Wikipedia ever rises to that level. For a short essay I once wrote on a related abuse of Wikipedia, please see here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock

This unblock [1] shows wisdom and common sense -- have you ever considering running for the arbitration committee? NE Ent 03:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"I arrested a man once and he turned out to be guilty; that's why I was made an inspector." — Inspector Cramer. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

If you choose to run, count on my vote. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Peter and the Wolf

Tell me how "absolutely no sourcing found" and "fails WP:NALBUMS" are "pointless, worthless nomination". WP:NALBUMS even says that, just because the artist is notable, does not mean the album is automatically notable. I would think you would know that WP:NOTINHERITED is a thing. If you think it's notable, how about you show me how it passes WP:NALBUMS? It didn't chart, so that's out. It hasn't been reviewed by anyone of note, so that's out. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2015-03-04/Arbitration report

How pleased are you that the term "Bradspeak" is not only still in circulation, but has entered the lexicon to the extent it can be used in a headline without explanation? Someone somewhere should probably be paying me royalties for the use of it. (Along with "civility police", "facebook for ugly people" and "undefined, not infinite".) – iridescent 07:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: It looks like we have Go Phightins! to thank for the "Bradspeak" reference in the title of the interview.

Am I pleased that the term is still remembered? To give a more serious reply than you might have expected, I suppose that depends on what it's being remembered for? If it's "thoughtful and deliberate written analysis of problems on Wikipedia, in a style commanding gravitas and attention" than sure, I'll be glad to be remembered that way, and I'll try to keep at it.

On the other hand, if "Bradspeak" is construed as "longwinded, legalistic, complicated, hard-to-understand prose in wikispace," I'm less honored. Believe it or not, in my real-world legal career, I'm a strong champion of writing legal documents that are readable and interesting, with as few unnecessary complexities and legalisms as possible. (That's one of the main reasons I participate here.) I never set out to achieve a different style in my wiki writing. Anyone reading through a few weeks of what I've written on WP:RFAR or sometimes at ANI or wherever could probably guess that I'm a lawyer (to the best of my knowledge, D--- B--- was the only person ever to doubt it), and that sometimes I think complicated thoughts. But it was never a conscious stylistic choice to write in complex and tangled sentences for its own sake.

I've actually been criticized for "complicated, awkward sentences" ever since high-school and college freshman English, and I suppose I've improved only marginally. My writing method is often to think the substance of an analysis through, but then to type quickly and get my thoughts down on the page. In my RL briefwriting or my scholarly writing, I try to root out unwanted complexity and other indicia of bad writing by writing a brief or an article sometime before it's due, and then returning to it a few days later. I can then not only fix the typos and copyedit but also hone and simplify the prose. In addressing a Wikipedia dispute, that generally can't be done—one needs to comment timely to influence the dispute, and only a limited amount of time can be spent—and so the first draft is the only draft. That, more than anything else, explains some sentences that leave even me, when I look back, asking "why the heck was I so long-winded about this?" And at times the writing style had the side-effect of leading knowledgeable critics, in their more Eva Destructive moments, to infer that I was substituting pomposity for analysis, which was never the case (or at least not consciously!).

As a sidenote, in the past few weeks I've tried not to spend too much time peeking at the arbitration pages. But I did look at the workshop in one of the cases after I left the Committee, and I found that my style was writing style. One of the arbitrators borrowed (with minor tweaks) a principle that I drafted in the Noleander case (and which passed unanimously, including your (Iridescent's) vote): "An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group." That's not a sentence that makes me cringe in retrospect; it says exactly what I meant it to say, including precisely the intended amount of ambiguity. But there's no doubt that it's complicated. Someone on the workshop page fed my sentence into the Flesch reading level meter, and it yielded a readability score of something like six hundred forty, meaning that the sentence can be understood only by advanced German-literature graduate students under controlled conditions, or something. So I suppose it will be simplified. And after all, it could be more-or-less paraphrased to "Don't be a bigoted asshole if you want to edit here." That would have worked as a principle (I'm not saying as a finding of fact) in the Noleander case too. Bestspeak, presumably, has a formality level somewhere in the middle.

I suppose this is Bradspeak at its worst again—answering a throwaway comment about longwindedness with an overly long reply. But I'll continue as I began and just leave it here rather than try to edit or truncate it. Make of it what you will. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The quotation is now at WP:Bias and prejudice, for easy reference. Arbcom does not make policy, but only enforces existing policy, so presumably the quoted proposition has the weight of policy, or...? LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 20:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In some defense, if you read the original quote (I know you did, as you commented in the thread) it was When one always has the knowledge at the back of one's mind that anything you say can be taken as a public pronouncement and waved at one of the drama boards in support of some wiki-crusade or other, it forces one to be very measured and pedantic with the wording of anything said for public consumption; Bradspeak is a virtually inevitable consequence. and in the context of a discussion about the need for functionaries to speak politely but without ambiguity, it was actually a defense of Bradspeak as the inevitable product of someone trying to bring clarity to a multicultural project. I've made many criticisms of you, but the use of language wasn't one of them. – iridescent 21:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Thanks very much ... I suppose I'll have to be self-critical without you this time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, regarding your comments two threads up, policy is very explicit that unlike the other drama boards, there's no requirement to notify the parties in a sockpuppet investigation. If you think that should be changed, Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations would be the place to go, but there are a number of good reasons why this is the case. – iridescent 07:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to admit that the SSI pages haven't been one of my wiki hangouts (the last time I really enjoyed a colloquy on WP:RFCU, which was the predecessor of SSI, was when Mackensen and Thatcher131 (as he then was) were bantering about the templates. That must have been around 1995 or so. So, I have no opinion on how that page should work. Regards again, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I enjoy witty titles, so I thought it was worth a shot :-) For the record, I have always found Bradspeak to mean the first possibility you mentioned -- careful, deliberate analysis. Go Phightins! 20:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Was it only 1995? Gawd. Mackensen (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you strive to write legal documents that are readable, I wonder if you've ever cited Dr. Seuss, as another lawyer recently did [2]? NE Ent 21:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I had little interest in sock investigations—my attitude was always "unless they're being disruptive or working around a sanction, it's better to leave them in situ so you know what their current account is". The comment was more for the benefit of others reading your talkpage—you have Font Of Wisdom status in some circles, and don't want to be indirectly endorsing incorrect advice. – iridescent 21:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I largely agree with you (about sock-chasing, that is, not about "Font Of Wisdom status"). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

My activities

If you think I should step away from GamerGate related articles, I shall so do. Dreadstar ☥ 01:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't investigated your history in the area, so I'm not saying that (or the opposite). I do think you've said enough on MarkBernstein's talkpage, though. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Then GG and MB are yours then, I'm removing them from my watchlist. And my apologies, I lost my temper and should not have been editing while that was occurring. Thanks for all your help and advice. Dreadstar ☥ 21:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC Celebration and Mini-Conference

Sunday March 22: Wikipedia Day NYC 2015

You are invited to join us at Barnard College for Wikipedia Day NYC 2015, a Wikipedia celebration and mini-conference for the project's 14th birthday. In addition to the party, the event will be a participatory unconference, with plenary panels, lightning talks, and of course open space sessions. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. Sunday March 22 Wikipedia Day NYC 2015 (RSVP on-wiki or at bit.ly/wikidaybarnard). 10:00pm - 9:00 pm at Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, by W 118th St We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

All things considered

Despite disagreement with some analysis of yours from time to time, you're a good egg.--Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Goo goo g'joob. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Note

I've been busy for the past few days between work and some other commitments. I'll still be mostly offline for the next few days, but should be back around after that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

tasting blood

See ArbCom even though you assiduously avoid it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look at this when I have more time (see below). I will share my thoughts then if I have any useful thoughts to share that wouldn't be repetitive of what others have said. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A superfluously sesquipedalian title which shall immediately betray the author's deluded pretensions to effectual elocution

Rather than make do with the patented 'On _____'--or simply '_____', as it were, I've elected to use this title, instead. I feel it suits me. Polysyllables aside, let's talk business:

You see, I'm somewhat....curious, I suppose. As you may recall, in an action which still, to this day, baffles me, you opted to opine regarding the severity of the punishment I was receiving due to my.....policy contraventions, we'll put it. As aforementioned, I am confused by this. We don't even know each other. I understand that you're an administrator, but there were already several on the case already. Moreover, your requests weren't exactly heeded--I am still under the trammel of an indefinite topic ban upon any and all subjects related to gamergate. Nothing really became of your efforts.

I write this, then, in the hopes that you may answer my questions, and, in so doing, dispel my befuddlement. Good day. Ghost Lourde (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ghost Lourde:First off, apologies for the short delay in my response. I've been mostly offline for a few days (see above).

Personally, I like the parodic writing style in your section header. You may not be aware of it, but inadvertently or otherwise, you were aping a writing style I've been accused of (cf. User:Newyorkbrad/Bradspeak).

As for why I addressed the arbitration enforcement thread concerning you, there were two main reasons. The first is that I was one of the members of the Arbitration Committee who was active in the GamerGate arbitration decision. (I was an arbitrator from 2008 to 2014, and continued into January on the GamerGate case since it opened in 2014.) This gave me a great deal of background on the GamerGate-related editing disputes, and therefore I've commented on some (though by no means all) GamerGate-related enforcement requests.

In that context, I saw the enforcement request against you and, as I always do when I am thinking of commenting or taking admin action involving an editor with whom I'm unfamiliar, I took a look at your userpage and talkpage to see what the editor has chosen to share concerning his or her background and editing interests. As you intended it, your userpage is very descriptive and very introspective. I thought it gave me some insight into why you might be editing the way you were and what advice might be most helpful to you. Every editor is a unique individual and should be treated as such, but after nine years on Wikipedia I have come to recognize certain types of frequently committed "rookie mistakes."

Of course, I didn't realize as I was typing my advice to you that another administrator was in the process of topic-banning you, thus rendering moot the advice I was giving. But I hope it was useful to you anyway. And I hope this reply is responsive to the question you asked me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, yes, you have satisfied my curiosity. Also, yes, the parody *was* inadvertent--it was more of a self-parody, really. Anyway, thank you for responding. Ghost Lourde (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request concerning you

Please see WP:A/R/C. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read the case request and posted my statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine

You win. Dreadstar ☥ 20:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't win anything. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to clarify. I have always held you to be one of the finest, but this shows me you are either biased or didn't take the time to understand what you did. I told you that I only supported unprotection if the edit warriors trying to add the disputed hidden text would be blocked if they continued.[3] Yet you unprotected and let them edit war to re-add the disputed text. Ergo, you wanted the hidden text, else you would have acted on it when they edit warred to re-add it. So you win, the hidden text is back. Dreadstar ☥ 16:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't, and don't, care much about the hidden text. I just didn't, and don't, like the idea of an FA being full-protected for a week based on a dispute about hidden text. Hopefully a consensus can be reached about the existence and content of the hidden text, or any other open issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: OK, so you're saying you were expecting Newyorkbrad to block an editor who re-adds the text. But were you expecting him to leave an editor who re-removed the text unblocked or were you expecting Newyorkbrad to block that editor too? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC) I've just realised he's blocked himself so I won't expect a reply yet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, while I understand your thinking, I might have left a picture of another large fish here...but I can't seem to find the last one I had left here. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for input. For what it's worth, I still think I did the right thing, for the reasons I have stated here and on the arbitration page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I must confess I thought you would. I think it's partially subject to interpretation of the FA criterion on stability; it could be argued that content is not significantly being changed each day (as it is about hidden text) so protection is really not a good way of sorting it out, but it could also be argued that the article is subject to ongoing edit wars and is therefore not stable, so a short term protection may not be such a bad thing.

In the end, it is a pity that a contributor was clearly in burnout (especially in recent weeks), and as he didn't take up a voluntary break for a relatively long short term, spiraled even more. The consequent outcome was inevitable. I'm not sure what efforts were made to counsel him or how many people sincerely attempted to get through to him before it reached this point, but I suspect a long-term loss which could have been avoided here. The drama escalation which followed this mess was probably avoidable (if not simply unnecessary) too, but seems to be an increasingly common feature at en.wiki. In that sense and in such situations, I do sometimes wonder whether the project is actually gaining, or whether it is losing more. I am sure you would have thought at some point (or still think) about that too. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

History DYK

Did you know that Laurence Olivier had an undisputed infobox from 25 May 2006 until 14 January 2015? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

ps: I didn't see the above when I wrote this. Had added a black and white image to my talk before, having written Martin Petzoldt (around the time of his memorial service, as I later found out) and nominated Maria Radner. RIP --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not discuss anything about infoboxes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A simple yes or no would have been shorter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hi Newyorkbrad, the Arbitration Committee has declined the Infoboxes II arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)